Void

Did we make incredible leaps ahead when there was no ethical standards? Did Watson HAVE to traumatize a young infant to demonstrate behaviorist tenets? Simply put, no. The advancement rate has been much more impacted by technology. If every question can be approached through ethical means, then the question of advancement becomes moot anyhow. They should reveal the same answers. Of course, you seemed to have neglected "natural experiments" that are utilized in psychology all the time and allow us to conduct work that would otherwise be unethical. For example: Does the sexual preference of your parents influence the sexual preference of children? This question would be unethical, if not impossible, to conduct in an experimental fashion. We can not assign sexuality to a partcipant. However, this experiment is being conducted everyday in this nation. A new population of homosexual parents are emerging. All we have to do is wait in the wings and collect the data. Other examples include patients with specific brain traumas. Read "Anthropologist on Mars" by Oliver Sax. These are "natural experiments" that do not require the lesioning of actually healthy human brains (i.e. yours or mine). I do recognize that ethics are socially constructed. At some detailed level politics do influence the ethics of some (i.e. Terri Shiavo), however the ethical standards to which I refer are at a general level, and merely ask that no harm, physical or psychological be experienced by the participant and their information be kept confidential. This is standard IRB stuff... If you want to swath this conversation in gray, I won't object. However, there is a reasonable level and appropriate standards in which it can be evaluated.

I think "pride" is a horrible way of describing face. A better description would be "self-respect" or "family-respect". Its also defined as "status in the eyes of others; "he lost face" Its a form of social respect. Pride is used in the ways your are describing, but I see it a bit more differently...as "An excessively high opinion of oneself; conceit"

I am more interested in the "unifying" part of your post, unifying in what sense?

These are questions that have been addressed by numerous books, and I cordially invite you to peruse the psychology section at you local bookstore. You might also try google, it works wonders.

Sorry, that was a general comment for all the talk concerning the "art" aspect. I did not want to double post.

So let me get this staright... Your asserting that pride has evolved so that we reinforce others, specifically our kids? However, it is possible to reward a child without feeling pride. When I reward my niece and nephew for good behavior, I do not do it out of pride, but out of knowing its behavior she must master for success. Some cultures do take this "parental pride" perspective. I think this may be something born out of the competitive individuality of Western cultures.

I am not sure if this is what Johnny5 orginally stated, but I do know that lay individuals do not think in terms of probability. One thing I don't understand, is that you say someone is not certain until they attain a 99/100. I find that a arbitrary number. I could be certain at 75/100 or 80/100. I imgaine there are individuals, that if asked, would respond they are certain that the next one out of the bag will be white after they have pulled ten in a row. The problem: We are not perfect rational beings to begin with. However, I would not doubt, that the probability of an individual responding as "certain" increases as they move more towards 99/100...

No...I don't think I would consider pride as the same as a tendency toward reward. Pride is exorbant self-esteem, its a reflection on one's accomplishments with a feeling of excess regard. What you are describing sounds more like the "in-group/out-group" bias. Now that would seem to have evolutionary roots. Especially toward kin, who represent a biological in-group.

Sounds a bit like regression toward the mean, no? An example would be repeated adminstration of tests to a group of people. The individuals who score high and low on the first adminstration are likely to score lower and higher (respectively, controlling for practice effects) the second time around. They have "regressed" toward the mean score of the group.

I would respectfully disagree with these comments. It has been shown that even when using expreimental methods, one's expectations can effect the collection and results. I would say you neglected to consider structured interview formats, that can be subjected to reliability tests. Overall, I consider psychology a science. It does not posit "laws" but does give us theories or models, that at best, offer a probable outcome. Now, I am not a physics minded individual, but from what I know quantum physics can offer us no more than that as well?